I should
like to begin by thanking you for inviting me to attend a sitting
of the Parliamentary Assembly. It is six years to the day that I
had the honour – as the Foreign Minister of Austria – to address
this Assembly, though in a more modest building. I am greatly honoured
to be with you again today.

Allow me, Mr President, to express my sincere thanks also
to the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers for attending this
sitting of the Parliamentary Assembly.

Let me begin with a confession. I have not brought with me
from Vienna the magical command which would open the door to the
solution of all European and world problems. But what I have brought
with me is:

– faith and confidence in Europe’s ability to solve the many
problems facing it,

– and the invigorating conviction that the Council of Europe
has a great part to play in this process and a great contribution
to make.

I must admit that I was one of those who about five years
ago, in order to avert the political sickness that seemed to me
then to threaten the Council, provoked a discussion of the role
and tasks of the Council of Europe. I am happy to note that in recent
years this discussion – a discussion which concerned our countries –
has died down and that today the need for the existence and the
activities of the Council of Europe is no longer called into question
by any of its members, and that even the various mental reservations
which may have occasionally existed, appear to have disappeared.

This is a fortunate development. The more self-evident the
existence and the activities of the Council of Europe, the more
we, the individual member states, as well as the individual bodies
of the Council of Europe, will be able to free ourselves from the
idea of rivalry with other European institutions, in particular
the European Communities. This idea of rivalry, which has sometimes
amounted to fear, would, if retained in future, merely weaken the
Council of Europe and the basis of the European Communities. All
of us, whether we belonged or belong to the “Nine” or to the former
“other Nine” have erred here in word and deed or by omission. Common sense
and feeling both give us the same answer: Brussels is not in competition
with Strasbourg, nor Strasbourg with Brussels, just as Strasbourg
has never been in competition with Helsinki or Belgrade. We of the
Council of Europe have no reason to feel inferior, nor have we any
reason to feel in any way superior.

We, the members of the Council of Europe, are an international
community, a great European community of like-minded people. As
the organisational form of this community, the Council of Europe
is equally necessary for all members. Many of us – and I include
Austria – have sometimes wrongly given the impression that they need
the Council of Europe more than do other members. All of us need
it. And I shall go so far as to say that the time will come when
our friends on the other side of the Atlantic will recognise that
it is a mistake to treat a European institution which includes twenty
countries, and thus a very considerable component of Europe in almost
all discussions and contacts, as of secondary importance. Any underestimation
of spiritual values and ideals must in the end lead to disillusionment,
even in politics. Those that want a pluralist world, need as comprehensive
and extensive a community of like-minded people as possible in order
to ensure cohesion.

It is also possible that the significance of the Council of
Europe has not yet fully penetrated to the states of what is known
as Eastern Europe because it has not been sufficiently in evidence
as a partner in discussions. And yet the present concept of peaceful
coexistence requires that the Council of Europe should play its
part and make a great contribution. Whether we approve or not, the
ideological argument between East and West will go on. It has not
been curtailed by either Helsinki or Belgrade. Would it not be –
and I said this six years ago in this Assembly – a European task,
a true contribution to peace, to work out, within the framework
of the Council of Europe and in particular of the Parliamentary
Assembly, the common political position of the large groupings represented
here, thus actively defining the position of democracy as conceived
by us and setting a limit to all totalitarian forms of society,
left or right.

Surely our great opportunity lies not merely in establishing
the necessary theoretical demarcations or the common understanding
of democracy shared by the important political groupings represented
here; it lies not in words, but in deeds. The influence of our community
of like- minded individuals is not felt in campaigns; people are
tired of them. It is our deeds that must speak for us.

If, therefore, we wish to spread our concept of democracy,
our concept of the freedom and dignity of man, our ideas of justice,
our view of man as the focal point and end of our political efforts
– and we do – then we must make this concept a reality in all our
member states. We must show that we are able, within our social
order, to develop our economy and raise the standard of living of
all our fellow citizens, without becoming the slaves of materialism.
We must prove, in each one of our states, that freedom of speech,
that all democratic freedoms are possible without engendering licentiousness
and lack of restraint. We must show that the social needs of individuals,
including the handicapped, are truly the concern of the governments
and parliaments. We must also prove that the demands of minorities,
aimed at preserving their national character, are being given serious consideration
by the entire state. And the most valuable part of our support for
human rights and basic freedoms must be for us the realisation of
these in our own country, with no exceptions. It is also up to us
to show by example that differences of opinion, even disputes and
a conflict of interests, can be solved by peaceful means.

If we succeed in this and in much more, then we shall be able
to provide a “display window” which gives our community of like-minded
individuals international significance and lends the Council of
Europe and its members an authority that penetrates even beyond
Europe.

Only if the Council of Europe stands by and implements the
principles for which it was founded shall we be able to create a
solid basis for the necessary political tasks of the Council of
Europe.

Backed by our eloquent example and our clear political orientation,
we in the Council of Europe can constitute a stronger partner than
hitherto in the East-West dialogue and so play a part in bringing
about détente; we can also take a stronger stand than hitherto in
world affairs and be listened to and we can also claim much better than
before to represent Europe vis-à-vis our discussion partners.

We are united – as the Statute of the Council of Europe that
we have all ratified says – by the resolve to establish peace on
a foundation of justice; we are united by the common heritage of
our peoples with all their intellectual and moral values and by
the concepts we share of individual freedom, political freedom and
the rule of law on which any true democracy rests. We are united
also by our common desire for social and economic progress and,
lastly, by our objective of a great united Europe.

Let us not underestimate the force of these principles that
unite us and let us have the patience to translate them into political
action freely agreed between us. It is not that the Council of Europe
and its organs have no executive power that is our weakness, but
the fact is that we often lack the patience, and often too the will,
to find a European solution to the problems with which we have to
deal.

Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen, the thoughts that I have
sought to express as a reflection of our common standpoint may seem
to many to weigh lightly in the balance in comparison with the great
aim of European unity in whose name the Statute of the Council of
Europe was signed in London on 5 May 1949. Let me therefore make
this clear: Churchill’s vision of a united Europe is an enduring
one. What I was trying to describe was a possible way of achieving
that goal.

And now another plea. Do not let us underestimate the integrating
force of the conventions and agreements concluded in the Council
of Europe. It will be the greater the more member states resolve
to ratify these European instruments or to put them otherwise into
effect, and the more states’ self-imposed restrictions are reflected
in a minimum of declared reservations.

Perhaps it would also be a good thing to intensify political
contacts between member states of the Council of Europe. The time
to do so could be found by limiting the polite formalities, in other
words by forgetting protocol, as can well be done between friends.

Our universal recognition and appreciation of the Council
of Europe ought, to my mind, to be expressed in its appropriate
financing by all the member states. The administration is not a
necessary evil but an indispensable feature of an international
organisation. In the Council of Europe it has always done exceptionally
good work. I am glad to have this opportunity of offering my sincere
thanks to the Secretariat and to the Secretary General. Let us beware
of hindering their valuable efforts by making too much of financial
problems.

Perhaps, Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen, you were expecting
a word from me about the situation that will arise with the direct
election of the European Parliament. It seems to me that a thorough
discussion of its consequences for the Council of Europe is needed
in the Parliamentary Assembly and in the Committee of Ministers.
I should like to stress just one thing today. I am convinced that
the direct election of the European Parliament will give impetus
to European-mindedness throughout our continent. There is no cause
to fear or to be worried about direct elections. We must simply
make use of this greater awareness of Europe in a way, though not
an imitative one, still to be determined by you and by the member
states. I am not among those – as you will realise from what I say
– who look on direct elections to the European Parliament with apprehension; on
the contrary I am among those who wish to adapt its consequences
where possible for the benefit of greater Europe.

Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen, in this speech I have
had the privilege of making to you, I have made no solemn vows on
Austria’s behalf of attachment to the Council of Europe, nor have
I spoken to you of the questions that must arise for a permanently
neutral state in relation to its membership of the Council. I do
not feel that any solemn vows are necessary since Austria’s full
commitment to the Council of Europe is constantly evidenced by the
Austrian members of the Parliamentary Assembly, appointed by our
parliament, as well as by the Austrian delegations to the Committee
of Ministers and all the other Council of Europe bodies. The support
given to the Council of Europe by Austria’s legislative body and
by our Federal Government is fully reflected in public opinion in
our country. The question of permanent neutrality needs no more
analysis here today since more than twenty years of practice have
illustrated it sufficiently. Hitherto our permanent neutrality has
never placed any restrictions on Austria’s active participation
in the work of all the Council of Europe’s organs and institutions,
since in declaring its permanent neutrality Austria has never left
any doubt about its firm family attachment to Western democracy,
according to whose principles it wishes to go on living.

And so it only remains for me, Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen,
to ask you to see my visit to the Council of Europe headquarters
in Strasbourg as an organic and natural consequence of Austria’s
and my own personal appreciation of the Council of Europe and in
particular of its Parliamentary Assembly. Thank you.

Thank you,
Mr Kirchschläger. We are very grateful to you for this statement
of principle coming as it does from a Head of State. It has surprised
many in the Assembly and delighted all of us that a Head of State
is ready to answer parliamentary questions. That does not happen
every day.

We have nine questions we should like to put to you. I believe
three of them exist in writing and in the meantime we have had notice
of the substance of the others.

I call Mr Hofer, and would ask him to put the entire question,
since it has not been distributed.

Mr HOFER (Switzerland) (translation)

Mr President,
I would like to put two questions connected with the Belgrade Conference
which Mr Kirchschläger mentioned in his speech, and which was, after
all, called in order to give the partner states some opportunity
of exchanging ideas on improving reciprocal relations.

My first question is rather general. Does the President of
the Republic of Austria share the view that the flow of free information
between East and West is a decisive factor in improving reciprocal
relations?

My second, more specific and detailed question is: Does Mr Kirchschläger
think that in spite of evident resistance from the East, Austria
is ready – at the CSCE Conference – to support my country’s proposal
that after the Belgrade Conference a meeting of experts should be
convened to draw up a statute guaranteeing satisfactory working
conditions throughout Europe for foreign correspondents?

Mr Kirchschläger, President of the Republic of Austria (translation)

I certainly share Mr Hofer’s
view that the flow of information between East and West is one of
the conditions for real co-operation in Europe, which is the aim
of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.

As regards the second question concerning the Swiss proposal
to convene a meeting of experts following the Belgrade Conference,
Austria has supported it. But I would like to point out that in
my opinion we should first try to come to an agreement on this question
within the Council of Europe.

As far as I know there already exists a Council of Europe
draft convention. I have, however, heard nothing about it in Vienna
at least for the past year. It seems to me that this draft, as it
existed about a year ago, is so good that we should first of all
agree on it among ourselves and then – and I believe this would
be a sphere in which to exert our efforts – once the twenty of us
are agreed, we can present a united front to our discussion partners
at Belgrade.

Sir John RODGERS (United Kingdom)

The Belgrade
meeting on the implementation of the Final Act of the Conference
on Security and Co-operation in Europe has now entered its last
stage with the difficult task of trying to work out a final document
to which all participants can agree. Knowing the keen interest and
active role that Austria has played during all stages of the CSCE
negotiations, both before and after the Helsinki document, I would
be most interested to know from His Excellency, the President of
the Austrian Republic, the answers to two questions.

First, how does Austria, as a neutral and non- aligned country,
consider the development of political co-operation and co-ordination
with regard to the CSCE between the various Western European groupings,
such as members of EEC and NATO, as well as neutral and non-aligned
countries and the Council of Europe in particular?

Second, to what extent has Austria improved co-operation with
her Eastern European neighbours, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, as
well as with Yugoslavia as a result – a direct result, I hope –
of the Helsinki agreements?

Mr Kirchschläger, President of the Republic of Austria (translation)

It is a major concern of Austria to
arrive at an agreed document. That was so in Helsinki, it was so
in Belgrade. We have done our best to make our contribution to this
and we are still doing so. We have always tried to take account
of all points of view in our activities.

Personally, it has always seemed to me a great pity – I felt
this as far back as the preparations for Helsinki – that the representatives
of Council of Europe member states were not prepared to hold joint
preliminary discussions before the start of the official meetings
of the CSCE. I tried at the time in Helsinki, at an informal dinner
to bring about such joint meeting of all the representatives of
Council of Europe member states but I did not succeed.

These efforts are my answer to you. I think an exchange of
views in the Council of Europe is necessary and should take place
as occasion requires, not merely during the six-monthly meetings
of the Committees of Ministers in connection with one of the five,
six or eight items on its agenda.

I think that for Austria’s occasional efforts at mediation
during these conferences in Helsinki or Belgrade, contacts with
the representatives of individual groups, whether from EEC or from
the Eastern European states are necessary. But I do not believe
that Austria as such needs to have direct contacts with EEC or with
NATO for the purpose of an exchange of views. The Council of Europe
is the appropriate body for this and it should be active not only
in Strasbourg but also in Helsinki and Belgrade.

As to the second question, that of bilateral relations with
Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Yugoslavia, let me say that towards
the end of the 50s it was Austria that pointed out that the problems
of relations with the countries commonly known as Eastern European
countries could not be tackled en bloc, but that they too were individual countries,
for which individual treatment and bilateral solutions needed to
be found.

In general we are of the opinion that bilateral relations
between Austria and Hungary have already gone further than the CSCE
decisions prescribe and have in many ways improved. Not in all,
but in many.

With Czechoslovakia we had bilateral problems to solve which
found no settlement at the CSCE, and we are now trying to improve
our relations.

I believe that the CSCE is also beneficial to relations with
Yugoslavia, though not decisive. What is decisive is once again
a bilateral question, namely the minority question, for which a
reasonable solution must be found.

THE PRESIDENT (translation)

Mr Boucheny’s
question is not in writing, I believe it is in the same connection. Mr Boucheny,
please...

Mr BOUCHENY (France) (translation)

The Austrian Government
has repeatedly stressed the equal importance of the three “baskets”
of the Helsinki Conference. It has, in particular, urged that the
question of human rights should not threaten the development of
détente. For that reason, Austria, like other neutral countries,
was anxious to avoid the Belgrade Conference becoming an arena for
sterile confrontations between the countries of Eastern and Western
Europe.

Do you not consider, Mr President of the Republic, that the
recent declarations made by President Carter on human rights and
the ensuing controversy have had a negative effect on your efforts
to bring about co-operation and mutual understanding?

Mr Kirchschläger, President of the Republic of Austria (translation)

Mr Boucheny is right. Austria has
always attached particular importance to Basket 3 because since
1946-47, and still more since 1955-56, it has been Austria’s policy
to pay special attention to individuals and the fate of individuals.

Throughout these decades we have pursued this policy in which
the emphasis is on the individual and we are still pursuing it in
the conviction that our policy will only be credible if we really
guarantee the right of each individual to the freedoms we call human
rights – fundamental freedoms – and if we shelter those about whom we
believe that they clearly do not have these rights.

It is on the basis of this policy that Austria grants asylum.
And I am convinced that Basket 3 was correctly described in Helsinki
as a package that will help to further peace and co-operation in
Europe.

Contradictory views will inevitably be expressed in political
discussions between representatives of different social systems.
In Austria we have always adopted the principle: no verbal confrontation,
but practical assistance for those who need it. This continues to
be our attitude, and in Belgrade too we proceeded on those lines.

I believe I have answered the essential points of your question.

Mr JESSEL (United Kingdom)

Following
your references to direct elections in the European Community and their
implications for the Council of Europe, Mr Kirchschläger, may I
ask you whether any consideration has been given in Austria to the
question of direct elections to our own body, the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe, and whether you would be willing
to express any opinion on this point?

Mr Kirchschläger, President of the Republic of Austria (translation)

I think they would be most annoyed
with me in Austria if I anticipated the decision as to whether there
should also be direct elections to the Council of Europe, since,
as far as Austria is concerned, that is a decision for Parliament
and the National and Federal Councils, and certainly not for the
President.

But under the Austrian Constitution the decision on the other
questions I have answered today does not rest with me either. I
have merely given you my personal opinion.

As I was trying to say in my speech from the rostrum, we must
see the direct elections to the European Parliament as something
which does not come from us but at whose stimulating effect we ought
to rejoice. I hesitated to say that we should simply decide to do
the same thing in the Parliamentary Assembly but, it seems to me
– though I am not the adviser of the members of the Assembly – that
we ought to work out a way that suits ourselves. As long as on the
grounds of its powers as defined in the Statute the Parliamentary
Assembly depends on national parliaments to translate its ideas
into reality, since it can make no legislation here, it seems to
me advisable to preserve a personal link between the members of
the Assembly here in Strasbourg and the members of national parliaments.

That is – I stress – my personal opinion and not my country’s
opinion, but I think a Federal President can sometimes have a personal
opinion.

Mr BRUGNON (France) (translation)

My question, Mr President
of the Republic, is closely akin to another which was asked earlier.

Austria, together with other neutral countries, pursues an
open and constructive policy of cooperation and dialogue between
the countries of Eastern and Western Europe.

What assessment can you make of the results of this concerted
approach adopted by the neutral countries? What are, in your view,
its positive contributions to the process of détente, in particular
in the realm of disarmament and confidence-building measures?

Mr Kirchschläger, President of the Republic of Austria (translation)

The agreement between the neutral
countries has the advantage that it is easier for us to find our
bearings but is not a binding agreement. We have no wish to form
a bloc of neutrals, but we believe that it is useful to exchange
views from time to time in the process of détente and that we must
necessarily seek to follow the same or at least a similar path.

As far as disarmament is concerned I do not think that Austria
can do much. I personally always believe that the prerequisite for
disarmament is a relationship of trust – trust between those partners
who are really competent to discuss military matters. Moreover,
this relationship of trust must not be an emotional one, but one
founded on facts.

A neutral country like Austria can at most offer its very
modest services in establishing a relationship of trust. At present,
however, when the big blocs have direct contact with each other,
there is no part the neutral states can usefully play.

Sir Frederic BENNETT (United Kingdom)

The President
of the Austrian Republic paid tribute to the work of this Council
and we were very proud to hear it. He also reaffirmed Austria’s
faith in the Council. The President, too, paid tribute to the work
of EEC and particularly to work of parliamentary members. We all
know why Austria felt that it was inapplicable and inappropriate
for her to join EEC, but we are now living in a time of expansion of
the European Communities. Many other countries are being included
in EEC. Although it was never envisaged that Austria should join,
is there, irrespective of Austria’s policy, any legal power preventing
her from joining? Is there some more profound constitutional reason
why Austria should not join? Is there anything in the Treaty of
Rome that would permit Austria to enter if she wished to do so?

Mr Kirchschläger, President of the Republic of Austria (translation)

By its very nature EEC is a supranational
organisation. In other words when EEC is fully operative, the decisions
are taken by its organs.

In our opinion this would not be compatible with the duties
of permanent neutrality, for the permanently neutral state must
also be in a position to make its own decisions, in any case at
a time of armed conflict, and indeed to take decisions on all questions
– even in the economic field for which it has responsibility vis-à-vis
the warring states.

It is above all the supranational nature of the European Communities
which prevents Austria from becoming a member. I also believe that
the special task and role of permanent neutrality assumed by Austria
on the basis of its geographical position would be endangered by
such membership.

We are very glad that, in contrast to the period between the
first and second world wars, we have a task to fulfil which is based
on our neutrality. We believe that this is also the guarantee of
our existence and of our security. But I do not believe that this
is a problem that can be done away with by a clause in the Treaty
of Rome.

Mr GRANT (United Kingdom)

The President
has really answered the question that I intended to ask. I should like
to tell him, as Vice-Chairman of the Parliamentary and Public Relations
Committee of the Council of Europe, how much my committee enjoyed
our recent visit to Vienna and how much we appreciated the excellent
arrangements made by Mr Karasek. The question I intended to ask
was this: the President spoke favourably of direct elections but
stressed Austria’s traditional policy of neutrality. Does he anticipate
that there will be a widening of EEC in the years ahead? Would he,
from a position of neutrality, welcome such a widening, and if it
did happen would he consider the possibility that the character
of EEC might change sufficiently to enable Austria to reconcile
her policy of neutrality with membership of a much wider EEC?

Mr Kirchschläger, President of the Republic of Austria (translation)

I am glad that Mr Grant has happy
memories of his visit to Vienna. I am sorry we did not have a chance
to meet there.

I find it difficult to answer his question. I am no futurologist
and I am very much afraid that there are so many “ifs” in his question
that I cannot answer it with a clear “yes” or “no”.

Perhaps I might just say this. We do not live in a static
world. If we cast our minds back, we shall see that much has changed
in the past twenty years. Inside Europe, inside the European Communities
and inside the Council of Europe, ideas and practice have not always
corresponded.

We do not know how things will develop. But one thing is certain.
That is that Austria will, on the one hand, do everything possible
towards European integration while preserving her neutrality, and
on the other, the qualified independence which in the joint discussions
between Switzerland, Austria and Sweden we considered the condition
for neutrality will be preserved. Precisely where the way lies,
I do not know.

Mr CERMOLACCE (France) (translation)

Because of its
geographical position and history, Austria is in a privileged position
for establishing relations of co-operation between the Western nations
and the countries of Eastern Europe. The Austrian Government has
pronounced itself in favour of concrete projects in the field of
economic co-operation between countries with different social systems
in the context of the follow-up to the Helsinki Conference.

What prospects does your government discern for the success
of the proposals which it put forward on holding pan-European conferences
on energy, transport and the environment?

Mr Kirchschläger, President of the Republic of Austria (translation)

In principle Austria has always favoured
specific treatment for the problems of transport and the environment
because we are convinced that we should build as many bridges as
possible between countries with different social systems and that
we should spin as many threads as possible on which to hang firm
and lasting cooperation. It is then a matter of personal choice
whether these specific problems are dealt with at a separate conference
or whether the existing and excellent institutions of EEC are used
for the purpose. In my view this is of secondary importance. But
Austria will certainly always ' favour discussion of the widest
possible range of questions of international, I might almost say,
daily life.

Mr BOURGEOIS (France) (translation)

Following the
visit of representatives of the Hungarian Government to Vienna, Mr President
of the Federal Republic, a joint communiqué was issued stressing
the exemplary character of Austro-Hungarian relations.

Do you consider that these relations between your country
and Hungary might serve as a model for future bonds of co-operation
designed to unite the countries of Eastern and Western Europe? And
do you take the view that the development of human contacts between
Austria and Hungary foreshadows changes of a positive nature by
the governments of Eastern Europe as regards the freedom of movement
of their citizens, or do you attribute it to the special features
of the Hungarian situation?

Mr Kirchschläger, President of the Republic of Austria (translation)

During my visit to Hungary last year
we quite advisedly described, in a communiqué, relations between
Austria and Hungary as exemplary – indeed we could have said a “pattern”
– for relations between states with two different social systems.
And I think we were right to do so because in our dealings with
each other the strict formalities often customary in dealings between
states with different social systems were hardly in evidence.

But I would hesitate to suggest that all the countries of
the West should copy Austro-Hungarian relations in dealings with
all the countries of the East, or simply adopt the same pattern.
This does not seem possible to me because we all know that international
relations – even relations between the countries assembled here
in the Council of Europe – depend on many things, on history, geographical
situation and in human terms on family ties. Relations between Austria
and Hungary are, I believe, exemplary, but I hesitate to say that
they can be copied lock, stock and barrel.

It seems to me that the positive development we have encountered
in Hungary may also be encountered elsewhere to a lesser extent,
sometimes even to the same extent, in other Eastern European states.
But it may be that bilateral questions have more force and carry
more weight than an overall trend.

Mr LEWIS (United Kingdom)

In introducing
His Excellency, the President of the Austrian Republic, you, Mr President,
quite rightly paid a very high tribute to his personal record in
power. My question follows upon that and I know that I shall have
a sympathetic response to it. I ask the President whether, as a
general rule, in his own opinion and probably in the opinion of
Austria also, every person of any country should be allowed freedom
to leave his or her country at any time, subject of course to that
person’s having broken no law and providing there is no legal impediment,
and to settle in any other country – again, obviously, subject to
that country granting admission? Would Austria generally acknowledge
that premise?

Following upon that, on the question of human rights, does
His Excellency the President agree that it is incumbent upon all
democrats to stand up for human rights, as he has done in the past,
and that that not only may but should mean that parliamentarians
and democrats generally, and particularly their governments, ought to
condemn any infringement of human rights, even by a country with
whom they have friendly relations, obviously subject to not interfering
with the internal arrangements and political activities of that
country; and that that country should not use – and I emphasise
the word “use” – the hoary old chestnut that to pass such adverse
comment is to interfere with the internal administration of that
country?

My point, briefly, is: would we not all make much more progress
if, on occasions, we could criticise constructively when we feel
that a country is doing wrong in relation to human rights, even
though that country may be one of our best friends?

Mr Kirchschläger, President of the Republic of Austria (translation)

I take it that Mr Lewis’s first question
was a rhetorical one. Naturally I agree that every individual should
have the right to leave his country, provided he has not committed
a criminal offence.

As regards the second question, the question on human rights,
I tried to make it clear in my speech that we need to begin by setting
an example. To wage a campaign for human rights without providing
a shining example of respect for human rights in one’s own country
will be seen as political propaganda and will have no real effect.
All of us, whatever our office, must be the guardians of human rights
in our own countries. We can then offer to relay them to other places.

Moreover, I believe that Brecht’s words: “Es gibt nichts Gutes, außer man tut es” (There
is nothing good unless you do it) apply to human rights as they
do to all matters about which there is much discussion.

I also believe, particularly in respect of human rights, that
we must guarantee them, we must respect them, we must guard them
in our own countries. A shining example – once it exists – will
shed its light in all directions. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT (translation)

The answer
to the last question seems to me the proper note on which to end.

If I now say that we all have the feeling that Mr Kirchschläger
still belongs to this Parliamentary Assembly, that by no means detracts
from the esteem and respect in which we hold the Head of the Austrian
State. Thank you, Mr Kirchschläger, most sincerely for telling us
your views and for answering our questions.

(Mr Kirchschläger, President of the Austrian Republic,
left the Chamber to general applause.)